About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
." this is a very old statute enacted by the first congress. it has sat dormant for 170 years. in some civil right type folks picked it up. -- been some civil right type folks picked it up and started bringing cases in which the plaintiff is foreign. the defendant is foreign. the tour took place in some foreign place. they say you have jurisdiction over this. courts have been going for this. they have been allowing some of these cases to go forward. this case raised the question of the of -- in this particular case, it took place in nigeria. the guy says the nigerian government committed these against me. they mistreated me. these foreign will company's work implicit -- foreign companies were implicit. so i am wanting to sue the oil companies in federal court. the defendant say this is not apply to corporations. he cannot actually sue a corporation under the statute. that was their claim. they did something very unusual. they actually said we want to consider a broader question. we would like you to brief not just this question of does it apply to corporations, but also doesn't apply extraterritor
enacted by the first congress. but it sat dormant for 170 odd years. then some civil rights type folks picked it up and human rights type folks and started bringing cases in which the plaintiff is foreign, the defendant is foreign, and the tort took place in some foreign place and they are bringing it to u.s. courts. so a paraguayan plaintiff and a pair of wayne defendant and it took place in her way. so the ticket to a u.s. -- a paraguayan plaintiff and a paraguayan defendant and it took place in paraguay. so they take it to the u.s. in this particular case, k iobal takes place in nigeria. and the nigerian government mistreated me, torture and so forth and these will companies, foreign oil companies, were complice it, helping the nigerian government do this to me. so i am wanting to sue the oil companies in federal court. and the oil companies defendants say that this does not apply to corporations. you cannot sue a corporation under this statute. that was their claim last year at the supreme court and the u.s. supreme court heard arguments in the case and did something very unusual.
, they give a lot of money to civil- rights organizations like jesse jackson and the n.a.a.c.p. i am one who supports pumping capital into the community so we can create jobs and small businesses. the young lady is on point with that. it has been an uphill battle for me to get african-americans to see in general that it is the new civil rights challenge. i'm so glad the banks do have regulation, because they tend to exploit black and brown communities. i'm so glad are our alternatives community banks and credit unions now. keep up the good work, young lady. thank you. host: for more information about what your group is doing and you are the director of the program, ptrust.org is one of the websites. caller: a lady called about not being able to have a bank account because there was a minimum balance she had to maintain. i belonged tour credit union for years and the minimum balance is $5. when my children were in high school, they wanted to manage their own money and put their money in wachovia. my daughter had a conniption when she put a hundred dollars in and the next time she made a depos
in the civil rights movement. so many people fought s i could express my views and vote and have a say. i never want to take that for granted. not as a celebrity but as an american. >> we just showed the brief clip of youpegth convention. >> i was really nervous. i get paid to be other people for a living. to speak as other people. as the convention i was speaking as myself in a room that big and the stakes are so high in this election. i ft like ias a trendous ho a a big responsibility. i kind of prefer being other people. >> that's an incredible room. energy in there. you get off one line and you feel the energy come back to you and it kind of builds. >> rlly exciting. >> i think we have a clipfou ki le listen. >> today there are people out there trying to take away rights that our mothers, our grandmothers and our great grandmothers fought for. rights that we fought fo ourigote our right to choose. our right to affordable, quality education. equal pay. access to health care. and we, the people, cannot l th en ow about that, mike barnicle. sign her up. >> when you watched yourself, you said y
respect the right in a situation of civil war? >> is not just accepting the right, it is the position of the international world. it is not achievable in every country right now. there are lots of countries where you don't have those kinds of rights were we have solid relations with china. and so is an aspiration and it is an aspiration that increasingly, over time, has become a reality in some many parts of the world. and so we keep pushing that aspiration ford and keep hoping that country after country, one group of people after another will learn to live in peace and build a representative form of government. when you say democracy, you think american jeffersonian model. there are lots of models. but is the aspiration that everyone has the right to self- determination. i hope it will happen in syria as well. we don't know how to make it happen, but remember that we live with all the countries in the arab spring for years without those rights being there. we found it necessary to accommodate ourselves to the fact that these were autocratic leaders and it was their people that finall
into what is already a very deep-seated lack of trust that people have for him. >> right. michael, is mr. romney proud or ashamed of his signature achievement in massachusetts? i would expect most politicians in the civilized world would regard medical care for children as being a major success story. >> yeah. he's actually been pretty consistent in defending what he did in massachusetts, even as he attacks obama care. the issue is less that he's changing his position. it's just that he's slicing this issue very finely. he objects to obama care on a number of very narrow grounds, even though on the stump he sounds like he's objecting to it broadly. he doesn't think the federal government should be doing it, he thinks it's okay if the state government does it, he doesn't think taxes should be raised and he's against the medicare advantage cuts. this is consistent for him since the beginning of the campaign. the problem is his rhetoric sounds like he objects to obama care on a much broader -- >> but, michael, the central issue is the individual mandate. >> that's right. >> and he's having
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)